Wednesday, October 8, 2008

These are some of the most challenging economic times that we will face at any point in our lives.

Neither Stephen Harper nor Jack Layton are capable of providing strong economic leadership at a time when Canadians need it most.

Stephen Harper demeans the intelligence of all Canadians as well as our electoral system by releasing his so called plan in the final week of a five week election.

An election that he called opportunistically at a time of his choosing, representing yet another example of the ease with which he breaks his trust with Canadians.

As such, Stephen Harper word is worthless. Worse yet, is that he is dangerously out of touch.

On September 16th, roughly three weeks ago, Stephen Harper said:

“My own belief is if we were going to have some kind of crash or recession, we probably would have had it by now,"

How much more wrong could Stephen Harper have been? The stock market has sunk in value by more than 25% since Stephen Harper uttered those empty words of false assurance?

Meanwhile the Liberal Party has a 5 point action plan that we will implement in the first 30 days of office.

Stephen Harper attempted to portray this 5 point Liberal action plan as an exercise in panicking.

It is anything but,. It is a thoughtful and prudent response to the current economic situation.

Meanwhile Stephen Harper is indeed the expert in panicking in the face of complex economic situations. No better example exists than his panicked reaction to income trusts . Another broken promise.

Stephen Harper allowed himself to be lobbied by narrow special interests on Bay Street and Wall Street that were threatened by the democratization of the Canadian capital markets which , for the first time, allowed average Canadians to own the earnings of Canadian companies, rather that just owning mere share certificates.

As Financer Minister, Jim Flaherty fell hook line and sinker for the lies that were being advanced by these special interests and turned around and told these same lies to Canadians. He claimed income trusts were causing the loss of taxes to Ottawa. If that’s the case, then where’s the proof?

If Jim Flaherty’s concerns were valid, then why didn’t he also start taxing his law firm that pays zero taxes? Jim Flaherty’s law firm is nothing more than an income trust. It pays zero taxes to the government.

As for Jack Layton, he stands for anything but democracy.

Jack Layton was blindly supportive of Jim Flaherty’s panic attack income trust policy that has lead to $108 billion of Canadians companies being taken over by middle eastern oil companies, Hong Kong billionaires and US private equity.

A policy that has caused 2,500 people to be fired from Bell Canada.

As a result, all Canadians are paying for this reckless policy. It is costing all taxpayers $2 billion a year in lost taxes

So what’s Jim Flaherty’s proof for his destructive policy?

18 pages of blacked out documents.

Meanwhile Jack Layton’s NDP were writing letters to their concerned constituents that read:

“We are confident that the government’s estimates of future tax losses are solid.”

Confident? On the strength of what? Totally blacked out documents?

The citizens of Whitby-Oshawa need an honest, intelligent and dedicated individual representing them in Ottawa. I am that person.

Please make your vote count in this important election by voting for me. I am dedicated to the task of working for you and for the interests of this riding where I first lived and worked upon graduation from Queens University 29 years ago.

EVENTS

Income Trust Halloween VigilThanks to all who participated in both the Ottawa and Calgary vigils to mark the anniversary of the announcement.

WE"D LIKE SOME ANSWERS

As you well know, the ‘income trust thing’ has grown beyond the
question of whether fair taxes are paid on income from trusts. It’s
become a giant dirty snowball, and as it rolls forward it accumulates
more and more bulk. There are so many unanswered questions. Let's list a few and invite our "Accountable" government and our free press to provide some much-needed answers.

It is said “Trusts are inefficient use of capital. Why?” Two
related questions are ‘Whose money is it, anyway?’, and ‘Do Canadian
investors have a free and efficient market?’

How can information that is already in the public domain at SEDAR
make for a state secret? How could such information be used to harm
the Canadian national interest? And who would cause the harm?

Why won’t the Canadian media investigate the falsehoods and
misrepresentations told by the Minister of Finance to a committee of
Parliament? Was the Minister in contempt of Parliament?

Why won’t the Canadian media report (a) government tax revenues
gained from BCE in 2006 when BCE was a corporation to (b) government
tax revenues that would be gained in 2007 from BCE, if BCE had been
allowed to proceed to a trust, and (c) government tax revenues that
will be gained in 2007 from BCE, when BCE ownership has been carved
up as 45% foreign ownership and 55% large Canadian pension fund
ownership?